Savings and Investments thread

shine166 said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

Carter said:

bobmunro said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)

Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.

£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.

Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!

I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out

What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme. 

Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this. 

And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.

£1100 rent
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).

I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.

As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.

!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.

Its a fair chunk of both in my eyes 

Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should 

Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health 

For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
 

I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).  


https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends

• 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
• 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.

Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:

35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult

82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work 

Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?

Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.

Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.

Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.

Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.

To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.

I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).

With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that. 

I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support. 

Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.

We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.

I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.

On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people. 

Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.

I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.

isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?

The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.

maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.

instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈

30 hours PW if you earn under 100k but that doesn't cover food or outings (the park/forrest school). Bang average nurserys are £70 per day where I am without the extras.

Luckily I have 2 side hustle, my Art and buying selling trading cards/pokemon or even a 30k gig wouldn't be enough to do more than the basics

carly burn said:

Hard I know and it sounds crazy to say this but I'm not sure a democratic society can get us out of the mess we find ourselves in.
There's always someone to keep happy and always someone complaining or feeling the brunt when you do. Getting the balance right is almost an impossible task and we've been failing at it for donkeys years and it's now just one big mess.
Even in the very core of our political parties are we seeing continual imbalance .In recent times as we've just seen with the Labour hierarchy keeping a lid on their back benches by conceding the two child cap. We saw it in an even bigger way with the Tories keeping a faction of their lot quiet with a Brexit referendum. Hardly things the country as a whole was generally calling for..just a small percentage in the grand scheme of things.
Im not saying a Putin or a kim Jong Un is the answer!
But this country needs solid direction and I don't think the current ways and means of offering that will ever be capable.
I'm veering off on the politics here and I apologise for that but some of the decisions made in recent times are and will eventually have a very negative impact on this country's ability to function well imo.

cantersaddick said:

shine166 said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

Carter said:

bobmunro said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)

Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.

£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.

Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!

I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out

What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme. 

Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this. 

And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.

£1100 rent
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).

I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.

As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.

!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.

Its a fair chunk of both in my eyes 

Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should 

Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health 

For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
 

I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).  


https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends

• 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
• 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.

Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:

35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult

82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work 

Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?

Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.

Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.

Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.

Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.

To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.

I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).

With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that. 

I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support. 

Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.

We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.

I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.

On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people. 

Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.

I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.

isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?

The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.

maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.

instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈

30 hours PW if you earn under 100k but that doesn't cover food or outings (the park/forrest school). Bang average nurserys are £70 per day where I am without the extras.

Luckily I have 2 side hustle, my Art and buying selling trading cards/pokemon or even a 30k gig wouldn't be enough to do more than the basics

Yeah you don't actually get 30 hours. You get a voucher for what the government deems should be enough to pay for 30 hours. The reality is if you go to even a middle of the road nursery you have to top that up significantly. 

And if you work full time you've got to cover another probably 20 hours a week to cover you 10 additional working hours plus commute to and from the nursery for pick up and drop off. And if your trains are delayed so you're late picking them up you get a fine. 

cantersaddick said:

shine166 said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

Carter said:

bobmunro said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)

Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.

£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.

Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!

I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out

What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme. 

Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this. 

And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.

£1100 rent
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).

I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.

As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.

!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.

Its a fair chunk of both in my eyes 

Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should 

Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health 

For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
 

I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).  


https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends

• 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
• 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.

Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:

35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult

82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work 

Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?

Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.

Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.

Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.

Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.

To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.

I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).

With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that. 

I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support. 

Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.

We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.

I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.

On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people. 

Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.

I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.

isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?

The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.

maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.

instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈

30 hours PW if you earn under 100k but that doesn't cover food or outings (the park/forrest school). Bang average nurserys are £70 per day where I am without the extras.

Luckily I have 2 side hustle, my Art and buying selling trading cards/pokemon or even a 30k gig wouldn't be enough to do more than the basics

Yeah you don't actually get 30 hours. You get a voucher for what the government deems should be enough to pay for 30 hours. The reality is if you go to even a middle of the road nursery you have to top that up significantly. 

And if you work full time you've got to cover another probably 20 hours a week to cover you 10 additional working hours plus commute to and from the nursery for pick up and drop off. And if your trains are delayed so you're late picking them up you get a fine. 

bobmunro said:

cantersaddick said:

Huskaris said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

Carter said:

bobmunro said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)

Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.

£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.

Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!

I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out

What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme. 

Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this. 

And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.

£1100 rent
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).

I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.

As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.

!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.

Its a fair chunk of both in my eyes 

Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should 

Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health 

For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
 

I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).  


https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends

• 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
• 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.

Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:

35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult

82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work 

Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?

Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.

Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.

Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.

Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.

To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.

I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).

With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that. 

I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support. 

Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.

We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.

I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.

On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people. 

Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.

I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.

isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?

The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.

maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.

instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈

I think the biggest difference between now and 20 years ago is the amount of otherwise intelligently people who make excuses for fecklessness. 

Nothing is ever anyone's fault. It's a bizarre society we live in. 

So we do live in a society? Because the first sentence seems to absolve yourself and society of any societal responsibility.

Also no recognition of how challenging the economic conditions facing most people are right now. The bigger picture like suppressed wages, inequality, poverty etc. But also the very real day to days of the job market, the housing market and cost of living.

I'd say the more bizarre thing is the number of people who have fully bought into hyper indivualism and the idea that there is no societal responsibility. Which by the way, is the new idea that arrived in the 80s with Thatcher and Neo-liberalism. Before that society and community were key to life.

That's bullshit and you are deliberately putting words in people's mouths. Huskaris never said anything of the sort and nobody on here is saying there isn't a societal responsibility to those who have hit very hard times through no fault of their own.

What people are saying is that those who can but choose not to shouldn't be bailed out by 'society'. That doesn't apply to everyone on benefits (nobody is saying it does) but there is a sizeable minority that take the absolute piss. 

I'll put words in your mouth then - you also seem to infer that society pre-Thatcher was somehow this utopian ideal of everyone helping others - it was not. There was just as much wage suppression back then, far less protection for workers, and there was nothing like the support from the state that people can get now.

Human nature is, thankfully, still overwhelmingly positive and I and the vast majority accept that taxes have to be levied to provide public services. I've never moaned about paying taxes, but I accept that I have been fortunate in still having a sizeable net income - particularly in the latter years of my working life. I haven't always been that fortunate, and my parents generation were certainly not fortunate at all in terms of a living income.

cantersaddick said:

bobmunro said:

cantersaddick said:

shine166 said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

Carter said:

bobmunro said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)

Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.

£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.

Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!

I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out

What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme. 

Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this. 

And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.

£1100 rent
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).

I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.

As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.

!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.

Its a fair chunk of both in my eyes 

Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should 

Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health 

For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
 

I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).  


https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends

• 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
• 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.

Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:

35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult

82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work 

Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?

Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.

Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.

Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.

Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.

To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.

I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).

With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that. 

I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support. 

Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.

We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.

I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.

On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people. 

Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.

I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.

isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?

The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.

maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.

instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈

30 hours PW if you earn under 100k but that doesn't cover food or outings (the park/forrest school). Bang average nurserys are £70 per day where I am without the extras.

Luckily I have 2 side hustle, my Art and buying selling trading cards/pokemon or even a 30k gig wouldn't be enough to do more than the basics

Yeah you don't actually get 30 hours. You get a voucher for what the government deems should be enough to pay for 30 hours. The reality is if you go to even a middle of the road nursery you have to top that up significantly. 

And if you work full time you've got to cover another probably 20 hours a week to cover you 10 additional working hours plus commute to and from the nursery for pick up and drop off. And if your trains are delayed so you're late picking them up you get a fine. 

Fuck me - we had to cover all of it back in the day. Everybody wants jam on it as well.

Did it cost significantly more than rent/mortgage "back in the day"? Were both parents expected to work full time just to avoid being I'm poverty "back in the day"?

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

bobmunro said:

cantersaddick said:

shine166 said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

Carter said:

bobmunro said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)

Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.

£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.

Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!

I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out

What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme. 

Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this. 

And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.

£1100 rent
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).

I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.

As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.

!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.

Its a fair chunk of both in my eyes 

Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should 

Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health 

For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
 

I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).  


https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends

• 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
• 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.

Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:

35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult

82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work 

Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?

Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.

Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.

Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.

Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.

To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.

I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).

With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that. 

I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support. 

Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.

We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.

I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.

On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people. 

Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.

I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.

isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?

The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.

maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.

instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈

30 hours PW if you earn under 100k but that doesn't cover food or outings (the park/forrest school). Bang average nurserys are £70 per day where I am without the extras.

Luckily I have 2 side hustle, my Art and buying selling trading cards/pokemon or even a 30k gig wouldn't be enough to do more than the basics

Yeah you don't actually get 30 hours. You get a voucher for what the government deems should be enough to pay for 30 hours. The reality is if you go to even a middle of the road nursery you have to top that up significantly. 

And if you work full time you've got to cover another probably 20 hours a week to cover you 10 additional working hours plus commute to and from the nursery for pick up and drop off. And if your trains are delayed so you're late picking them up you get a fine. 

Fuck me - we had to cover all of it back in the day. Everybody wants jam on it as well.

Did it cost significantly more than rent/mortgage "back in the day"? Were both parents expected to work full time just to avoid being I'm poverty "back in the day"?

Depends quite when back in the day was.

if I take my parents, first 4 years of marriage they rented a room in an aunts house. Finally saved enough to buy, but had to move out to Rainham (Kent) to do so. My mum also pawned her engagement ring (which she got back 40 years later, but that another story) to do so.

once they had children my mum gave up full time work until we were school age. My dad took on two extra jobs and my mum worked evenings. Once I went to school my mum went back to work, my dad continued jobs 2 & 3 until I was about 12 (I was the youngest).

times were fairly tough, IF we went on holiday it was 4-5 days in a B&B in cliftonville until we upgraded to the IOW for a full week in a holiday camp that resembled a prison, and it saddened me to hear as an adult that for many years my mum often went without a dinner so that me and my sister ate - no benefits available in those days! Car was an old fruit and veg van, me and my sister sat in the back (no seats!)

my entry to adult hood. I left home quite young, rented a bedsit in Bethnal Green, worked in an office and bars most nights/weekends.

took me 7 years but managed to save enough to buy, married at 25, first child at 26, went back to working in bars etc in evenings/weekends as my wife went part time, 2nd child at 29, wife gave up work, I quit the bar work but did weekend work during the day.

by mid 30’s my career had taken off, no longer needed to work weekends and my wife went back to work (this time in a school to fit around the children).

there wasn’t a lot of jam in those early days, certainly not other people’s……

Huskaris said:

CharltonKerry said:

Being a Luddite I have no idea re side hustles and what it mean, but I assume it’s some kind businesses venture and therefore you all pay the appropriate taxes on these hustles? Or is it undeclared?

It should be declared, and if you sell on Etsy, like myself and Canters/ his misses does, they pass data onto HMRC.

Leuth said:

bobmunro said:

cantersaddick said:

bobmunro said:

cantersaddick said:

shine166 said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

ForestHillAddick said:

cantersaddick said:

Carter said:

bobmunro said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)

Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.

£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.

Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!

I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out

What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme. 

Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this. 

And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.

£1100 rent
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).

I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.

As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.

!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.

Its a fair chunk of both in my eyes 

Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should 

Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health 

For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
 

I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).  


https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends

• 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
• 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.

Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:

35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult

82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work 

Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?

Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.

Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.

Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.

Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.

To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.

I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).

With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that. 

I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support. 

Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.

We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.

I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.

On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people. 

Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.

I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.

isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?

The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.

maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.

instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈

30 hours PW if you earn under 100k but that doesn't cover food or outings (the park/forrest school). Bang average nurserys are £70 per day where I am without the extras.

Luckily I have 2 side hustle, my Art and buying selling trading cards/pokemon or even a 30k gig wouldn't be enough to do more than the basics

Yeah you don't actually get 30 hours. You get a voucher for what the government deems should be enough to pay for 30 hours. The reality is if you go to even a middle of the road nursery you have to top that up significantly. 

And if you work full time you've got to cover another probably 20 hours a week to cover you 10 additional working hours plus commute to and from the nursery for pick up and drop off. And if your trains are delayed so you're late picking them up you get a fine. 

Fuck me - we had to cover all of it back in the day. Everybody wants jam on it as well.

Did it cost significantly more than rent/mortgage "back in the day"? Were both parents expected to work full time just to avoid being I'm poverty "back in the day"?

When we bought our first house my net pay was swallowed up by the mortgage and we lived on my wife's pay. When we started a family we decided that it would be better for our children for my wife to stay home while I went to work during the day. I would get home from work at around 7pm and my wife and I passed like ships in the night as she went off to do the night shift five nights x 8 hours per week stacking shelves in Tescos. She would get home around six in the morning just in time for me to leave for work. Total amount of benefit from the state, child care paid for etc...? The square root of fuck all.

Back in the day.

How long did this situation last, though? You had an actual career ladder in front of you. And you'd been able to buy a whole damn house. 

Younger people now are faced with miserable job prospects, prohibitively expensive costs of living and public services that might as well not exist. A lot of you don't seem to realise quite how bad it's gotten 

Leuth said:

Like, I'm not denying that a lot of you made big sacrifices and did a lot of jobs to make ends meet in your 20s - likewise, btw, my education counted for close to fuck-all during a recession - but the common factor you all seem to share is 'oh and then my career took off'. This just isn't an option for a lot of younger people now. They're not blowing all their money on telly and drugs, they're genuinely unable to keep up with the cost of living 

cantersaddick said:

Leuth said:

Like, I'm not denying that a lot of you made big sacrifices and did a lot of jobs to make ends meet in your 20s - likewise, btw, my education counted for close to fuck-all during a recession - but the common factor you all seem to share is 'oh and then my career took off'. This just isn't an option for a lot of younger people now. They're not blowing all their money on telly and drugs, they're genuinely unable to keep up with the cost of living 

I'm not keen to go down the intergenerational route as I think its unhelpful and a distraction from the real inequality issues. However others have started it so I do want to say I agree with this part. 

I also want to address that multiple people have said their wife was able to give up work to cover childcare. But we literally had a whole conversation a page or 2 ago about families in poverty where people were arguing they were only in poverty because the second parent wasnt working or working full time. You cant have it both ways.